If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The reason the thread was started in the first place was, as Cano said the issue could not be solved privately. I had attempted to solve the issue "privately" for the better part of my entire caching career (since early Summer 2009) yet it only got worse with no replies from any of the parties to my inquiries.

Yes, this is a "private" site. This means that the moderators can end threads and censor topics. Is this ok? Yes. Is it good for the sport of Geocaching and for the Maine Geocaching Community? No it is not.

I would think that this site's intention and goal would be, to provide an open place for Geocachers to discuss OPENLY caches, and issues within the esoteric Geocaching society. Where else are we to discuss issues such as the one that I am currently attempting to resolve? We aren't supposed to post comments on actual cache listings on GC.com, and I have been told by Groundspeak not to EVER contact KEDS again regarding this issue. So, that rules out attempting to deal with the issue privately. So, Groundspeak has effectively neutered my ability to solve this issue, through diplomacy (which mind you, when I attempted over and over before, resulted in no dialogue since the parties involved refused to even respond to my messages).

Since I have begun Geocaching, I have been the one who has gotten dumped on ANONYMOUSLY by other cachers when one of my hides has pissed them off in some way shape or form. I highly dislike anonymous tattle tale activities. And so, I decided that since other cachers seem not to have the common decency to confront me personally and privately regarding an issue with my cache, I neither shall either. I shall do it publicly so ALL cachers will know of the issue with their cache.

I am not a spineless twit who will back down at the slightest perception of someone with "authority" in the 'Maine Geocaching Community' confronting me. Nor do I or will I lay down when confronted with inconsistencies with cache placements.

Let me give an example. Brdad, you mentioned in your post about the fictional anythinggoescaching.com site, that caches would now be allowed on bridges. Well, that would imply that caches are not allowed to be placed on bridges with GC.com's Guidelines. As I understand it, the guidelines are in place for that senario due to hightened homeland security and the possibility of increased or suspicious activity on a bridge which can lead to possible criminal issues. However, I know of MANY caches that are on bridges, some placed by very good friends of mine. Now, those caches were placed before the Groundspeak guidelines changed and made bridge cache placements 'illiegal'. However, as I understand it, those caches placed before the change of guidelines are 'grandfathered' and not subject to said guideline. Why is this? If it is a homeland security issue, and could involve law enforcement, then looking at the safety and security issue, I would think it would take precedent and force these 'grandfathered' caches to be removed. Yet, they are still in place. Should I start complaining to Groundspeak about this?

How about railroad tracks? I tried to place a cache in Thomaston, ME at the old Maine State Prison site over the summer and it was denied because it was under 150 feet in distance to an active railroad. I pleaded with the reviewer and finally had to drive to Thomaston and move my cache. No reasoning, privately and diplomatically would pull the reviewer out of his trench on this. However, since then I have come across NUMEROUS caches that have been published SINCE that issue that are WELL under the 150ft distance to an active railroad. Heck, two are even located on a trail system in Portland which require you to follow a trail across the railroad tracks, and you can see the tracks only 80 feet away from the cache site. I have taken note of all these caches but have not said a word to Groundspeak or the reviewer.

I think the problem with me, and my caching is that I am a person whom uses REASON to guide me in life, and unfortunately, rules, regulations, Guidelines, and people of authority are not based on REASON.

I am not going to back down on this issue. I could truly see my GC membership being cancelled by Groundspeak in the near future because I am putting up such a stink. I could also see myself being forcibly removed from geocachinginmaine.org due to this. I wouldn't put it past the 'respected members' of the Maine Geocaching Community who run this site to do so.

That being said, I want to thank brdad for allowing THIS thread to continue because it has in essence allowed my original thread to live another day.

I apologize that this posting is long and covers many topics, but I am not able to log onto the site throughout my work day and keep updated on the newest comment thread.

I could also see myself being forcibly removed from geocachinginmaine.org due to this. I wouldn't put it past the 'respected members' of the Maine Geocaching Community who run this site to do so.

Then you really don't know the "respected members" of the Maine Geocaching Community who administer this site, or you would know that they would not do this. Your sneering remarks do them a disservice.

Sheesh! I've been here for almost 6 years, and they haven't gotten rid of me! LOL!

That's fine. I have had enough "sneering" remarks from them, in my short time using this site in regards to my own caches, others, and certain series' of caches, and have seen plenty from them in other regard to other threads as well.

As far as doing them a "disservice", I'd like to archive all my caches and see who the "disservice" effects. Not them, because they have no desire to find them. But it will effect the enjoyment of the 'game' to many many other cachers who travel from miles around to hit many of my caches.

Remember, respect is gained. And if this means that I have lost respect from other cachers over this, then I must not have had their respect in the first place.

I find it interesting that no one here has even attempted to challenge me on the substantial issue that my original thread was about. I laid out a detailed synopsis here and in the original thread yet all anyone who does disgree with me can say is just that; they disagree.

My comment about bridges was referring to those bridges which are currently off limits by gc.com. Outside of that, I do not know why existing caches in areas which are determined to be sensitive are allowed to stay. I don't know how gc.com determines which bridges are sensitive. I also don't know why they discontinued virtuals which the hider was required to provide good reason why a cache should be allowed there and replaced it with allowing urban caches to be placed nearly anywhere without and good cause whatsoever. I also don't know how they know which RR tracks are ok to be near and which are not (After all, I have a cache which is 15 feet from active RR tracks). I don't know why gc.com does half of what they do. If I ran it, it'd be different - some rules would be lessened, some would be tightened. I think most of us would make adjustments if we were at the helm. But we're not.

What I do know (or at least believe) is gc.com is making an effort to make the sport safe and enjoyable to as many people as they can (which makes sense to be profitable). Cache approvers do not visit cache sites so they make their decisions based on the information they have available to them. They are human and do make mistakes.

My advice would only be to consider your odds of being questioned about your hides as well. You have hidden 290 caches in less than a year. That is a lot of caches. I am guessing (correct me if I am wrong) that many of these are urban or at least in more populated neighborhoods. Those two factors alone are going to subject you as a cache hider to questioning much more than the average cache hider. I have hidden 6 caches in 7 years and have been questioned on one of them. One sixth of your hides is 48 caches, and that is not taking into account 4 of my hides are away from civilization. Factor that in with how much research (land ownership, nearby caches, permission) you have done before placing your caches and adjust your odds accordingly. Only you know the answer to that.

I find it interesting that no one here has even attempted to challenge me on the substantial issue that my original thread was about. I laid out a detailed synopsis here and in the original thread yet all anyone who does disgree with me can say is just that; they disagree.

Regarding the original part of your post, the improperly labeled cache - I have run into caches like that and it has annoyed me. Most of them I made a comment in my log about it and left it at that. I did not threaten to have it archived nor did I send multiple emails to the cache owner. Sometimes it is a mistake, sometimes they are grandfathered. You've seen me get excited about some issues regarding caches, but IMO a small number of improperly marked caches are not an issue which will degrade the sport.

Regarding approvers that single out cache hiders - they are people too and I am sure it has and does happen on occasion. But I think if an approver behaved this way continually eventually enough people would speak up and a replacement would be made. I really think this is a rare occurrence, especially in lower density areas like Maine.

The challenge!

Originally Posted by CARoperPhotography

I find it interesting that no one here has even attempted to challenge me on the substantial issue that my original thread was about. I laid out a detailed synopsis here and in the original thread yet all anyone who does disgree with me can say is just that; they disagree.

Why should we CHALLENGE you on anything. This is just a hobby. If someone is not acting the way you think they should, just ignore them. Why get so worked up over 1 cache by 1 person. If I have an issue with a cache, I ignore it and go to the next one. Life is too short to get this worked up over something like that, so I guess I will not be CHALLENGING you on this, I'll just be moving on to the next therad.

If so why was Bruce allowed to enter a comment at 7:59AM? It would seem we should all get a chance to post once more to the closed thread. I had seen the original posting and a couple of the responses and was considering a reply. When I went back I saw the thread closed, so I was considering posting a thread about the closure, when Paul beat me to it.

Then later I logged on and found activity on the thread. Seems like a Chadd is correct in his fears of insiders controlling the boards. The thread is closed to the commoners, yet not to the insiders.

Chadd, I think you need to remember this is a game...something that most of us do for enjoyment...if I don't like a cache or the way it is done...guess what! I don't do it...that's way GSAK put that filter on the top of the page. Or put it on your ignore list...problem solved. There are always many more great caches down the road....like some of those fun ones I've done in the Massabeesic Forest...4x4ing through the ice and snow doing some of your caches...that's the kind of stuff I do for enjoyment.

A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports/games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjongsolitaire).
Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational or psychological role. According to Chris Crawford, the requirement for player interaction puts activities such as jigsaw puzzles and solitaire "games" into the category of puzzles rather than games.[1]

It wasn't so much that he was allowed, it's more that since he is moderating new accounts, he also has the ability to post to closed threads. I imagine (and hope) that this was an overlook on his part. I have made similar mistakes in the past and have apologized to the affected parties and learned from the experience.